By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Frequency said:
DevilRising said:


That's funny, you don't need to pay extra $$$ to play a lot of games online with Steam. You also didn't need to do so with PSN on PS3, which was most certainly a "network infrastructure" as you call it. The argument really doesn't hold water, and Sony seemed to be doing just fine having free online last gen. And while Nintendo may not an XBL type of system, the Wii U has it's friend structure and new Miiverse functions, the latter of which I'm sure costs at least some money to operate. However, even if Nintendo DID have a more elaborate "network infrastructure", I think they just might not charge people for online gaming, because no matter how people like you try to rationalize it because "your company", IE the company you're obviously a fan of, is doing it, it's still a fucking ripoff.

No, network costs don't "come on the disk you buy", but the online modes that the developer programmed into the fucking game sure as hell do. And getting bent over and told to take it is getting bent over and told to take it, no matter how you try to justfy it, it is what it is. And that is precisely what paying $70 for a PS4 game, and then having to pay a manditory monthy PSN fee JUST to play that game online, is.

Most steam games are peer to peer, with some using content servers or dedicated servers, but we are talking consoles here.

Mr Khan said:

Yeah, if Sony or Microsoft were actually running a network structure and not a peer-to-peer one. There's nothing they're doing that Nintendo's not doing. You're paying *them* to use *your* online to play with others. Sounds like slavery to me.

Both Microsoft and Sony are running coherant connectable network infrastructures ranging from content management to profile storage / cloud storage and for games that warrant it, dedicated login or game servers, Nintendos approach is simply to issue friend codes and bounce you to the person you want to play with via relay, Nintendo has no tangible accounts system, when connected to the internet you are just a hardware id, thus if you switch machines for any reason you start over.

Saying the two are the same shows a complete lack of any workable knowledge of the network systems in place.

Still fail to see the difference. If *all* games had dedicated servers, it would be worth it. If we're talking about content management, that's all stuff that's being monetized by, you know, buying the content. The rest is just a peer-to-peer run that they've duped gamers into paying for.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.